Why Do I Live in a World Where My “Smart” TV Spies on Me?

Why Do I Live in a World Where My “Smart” TV Spies on Me?

I think I was born in the wrong time period. Either that, or no matter what year it is, it's really just 1984 over and over again.

You know things have gone just a bit south when the privacy policy customers receive when they purchase a new Samsung internet-connected smart TV warns them that anything they say near their television set will be RECORDED AND SENT TO A THIRD PARTY:

Careful what you say around your TV. It may be listening. And blabbing.

A single sentence buried in a dense "privacy policy" for Samsung's Internet-connected SmartTV advises users that its nifty voice command feature might capture more than just your request to play the latest episode of Downton Abbey.

"Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party," the policy reads. [emphasis added]


Voice recognition is supposed to be a selling point for people who are too lazy to use their remote, but if you are too lazy to pick up a remote in a first place (the remote itself was supposedly created because we were all too lazy to get up and press the buttons on the TV console), then you probably have other issues.

Still, you might want to be aware of the fact that if you talk about, well, anything near your television, your television is going to record your voice and send it to third parties.

What constitutes "near" the television? The privacy policy doesn't specify. What constitutes a third party? I'm sure the government and its numerous spy agencies are on that list, right next to any number of corporations who want to sell you crap based on what you discuss in the privacy of your own home.

Oh and by the way, the television also comes complete with a camera that will facially recognize you in lieu of a manual password input. But I'm sure it only does that when you specifically ask it to, right? It also comes with "gesture control" which learns to recognize your gestures to control the television as well. I wonder what happens when you give it the middle finger. In Britain, it's probably an anti-social thought crime to flip off your own TV.

And remember! You consented to having this spy device in your home when you bought it… But how many people who buy it are even reading the fine print in the privacy policy anyway? Who wants to give away this much personal information every time they watch TV?

Oh wait, I guess the nonexistence of privacy is super trendy now.

rest of article at link below:

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/02/live-world-smart-tv-spies/#KdolMo...

Views: 25

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion





Reporter Kicked Out Of Michelle Obama
Conference For Violating ‘Black Girl Code’

The Black Entertainment Television channel recently hosted a conference in south Florida for black women known as “Leading Women Defined,” which featured a casual conversation between former first lady Michelle Obama and former senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

But according to the New York Post’s Page Six, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was in attendance was booted from the remainder of the conference after she wrote an article about some of the comments Obama had made during the discussion.

Robin Givhan, a fashion critic and staff writer for The Washington Post, documented the highlights of the friendly chat between Obama and Jarrett.

Some of the highlights of the conversation included the former first lady’s thoughts on President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the Obamas prepared to leave the White House, the role she played during the 2008 election, her difficulty settling in as “the spouse” to the president, how she described her White House garden as a “subversive act” to garner trust with the public and her upcoming memoir. Of course Givhan also wrote about what Obama was wearing … after all, she is a fashion critic.

But following the publication of the article, according to Page Six, BET demanded Givhan leave the conference early amid claims that she had violated a “sacred space” by publishing the content of the conversation.

They also canceled a panel discussion that Givhan initially had been asked to moderate.

However, Page Six noted that BET’s claim that Obama’s discussion was “private” and not intended to be shared with anyone else outside the small gathering in attendance didn’t hold up to scrutiny given the fact that BET itself posted clips from the discussion on its site.

Furthermore, Jarrett also posted those clips on social media and told everyone to “tune in” to the network so they could hear what Obama had to say.

Shortly thereafter, the dispute descended into a sharp back-and-forth on social media between Givhan and others who were irked at what she had done, as can be seen on Givhan’s Twitter feed.

Several of her critics asserted that the conversation had been “off-the-record” — an assertion Givhan flatly denied — and one user claimed the reporter had “violated a sacred trust” between black women.

Another said what she had done was a “complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code, all at once,” while still another asserted through a hashtag that Givhan was “#notoneofus,” as if she were being banished from the exclusive realm of accepted professional black women.

For their part, a BET representative told Page Six that Givhan had been “invited as a guest (not working press) to moderate a fashion panel,” and noted that her travel and lodging expenses had been paid for by the network.

“She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship,” the rep added.

Neither Givhan nor representatives for Obama responded to requests for comment on the report from Page Six.

If the WaPo reporter really was instructed ahead of time that the conversation between Obama and Jarrett was “off the record” and a private affair, but published anyway, then BET was justified in booting her from the remainder of the conference — though the mean-spirited commentary she received on social media still crossed the line.

But if Givhan received no prior warning on the matter — and given the fact that BET itself published the conversation later — then this is just a major display of hypocrisy and unnecessary infighting.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service